Tim Scott Finally Acted On Behalf Of Rights And Justice

I gen­er­al­ly have noth­ing good to say about Republicans for the sim­ple rea­son that the Republican Party advances and sup­ports lit­er­al­ly every­thing I hate and hate every­thing I sup­port.
On the issues of Race. Poverty. Health-Care. Immigration. The Environment. Foreign Policy. and every oth­er issue in between, my views are vast­ly dif­fer­ent than those espoused by the Republican party.

The idea of black Republicans is even more revolt­ing to me as I have stat­ed in pre­vi­ous arti­cles. 
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. , Trump’s Housing Secretary Ben Carson and the likes of Ken Blackwell for­mer Ohio Secretary of state all are black men who have demon­stra­bly act­ed in ways that have been destruc­tive and par­tic­u­lar­ly vicious against their own race. 

As I have said time and again the destruc­tive nature of the Republican par­ty makes it impos­si­ble for me to under­stand why any per­son of col­or would sup­port a par­ty which actu­al­ly hates them.
Nevertheless, some­times the abil­i­ty to use a cer­tain course to pow­er far out­weighs prin­ci­ples and it’s impor­tant to always remem­ber that to each his own.
Which brings me to South Carolina’s Republican Senator Tim Scott.
Tim Scott has been win­ning elec­tions in South Carolina’s most­ly white Districts from 1995 when he ran in a February 1995 spe­cial elec­tion to the Charleston County Council at-large seat vacat­ed by Keith Summey, who resigned his seat after being elect­ed as Mayor of North Charleston.

Scott, a for­mer finan­cial advis­er, and busi­ness­man who owns an insur­ance agency, (Tim Scott Allstate) pos­si­bly did not see a path for­ward in pol­i­tics unless he declared and ran as a Republican.
Tim Scott is the Republican US Senator from South Carolina and Tim Scott final­ly stood up today when I did not believe he had the balls to do what’s right.
Here is the sto­ry from our friends at @ https://​www​.msn​.com

Sen. Tim Scott said Thursday he will oppose the nom­i­na­tion of Thomas Farr to the fed­er­al bench, assur­ing the con­tro­ver­sial pick will not be con­firmed. The South Carolina Republican was the decid­ing vote in deter­min­ing whether Farr, wide­ly accused of efforts to dis­en­fran­chise black vot­ers, would be con­firmed.
Scott’s deci­sion comes after four days of intense dra­ma and spec­u­la­tion about what the Senate’s only black Republican would do.
Sen. Jeff Flake, R‑Arizona, made it clear ear­li­er in the day he, too, would oppose Farr’s nom­i­na­tion. Senate Republicans could only afford to lose one vote and still con­firm Farr. Senate Republicans con­trol 51 seats, and all 49 Democratic cau­cus mem­bers were expect­ed to oppose Farr.

In a brief state­ment explain­ing his deci­sion, Scott cit­ed a 1991 Department of Justice memo that was leaked just this week, days before the Senate was set to vote on Farr’s con­fir­ma­tion. It detailed Farr’s involve­ment in “bal­lot secu­ri­ty” activ­i­ties by the 1984 and 1990 cam­paigns of then-Sen. Jesse Helms, R‑North Carolina.
Farr worked for the cam­paign in 1984 and rep­re­sent­ed the 1990 cam­paign as a lawyer.
Helms’ 1990 re-elec­tion cam­paign against for­mer Charlotte may­or Harvey Gantt, who is black, includ­ed charges of vot­er intim­i­da­tion for post­cards mailed to pri­mar­i­ly black vot­ers warn­ing of pos­si­ble arrest at the polls. The Department of Justice inves­ti­gat­ed the vot­er intim­i­da­tion claims and set­tled with the Helms cam­paign in a con­sent decree.

“I am ready and will­ing to sup­port strong can­di­dates for our judi­cial vacan­cies that do not have lin­ger­ing con­cerns about issues that could affect their deci­sion-mak­ing process as a fed­er­al judge,” Scott said in his state­ment. “This week, a Department of Justice memo writ­ten under President George H.W. Bush was released that shed new light on Mr. Farr’s activ­i­ties. This, in turn, cre­at­ed more con­cerns. Weighing these impor­tant fac­tors, this after­noon I con­clud­ed that I could not sup­port Mr. Farr’s nomination.”The 1991 memo said that “Farr was the pri­ma­ry coör­di­na­tor of the 1984 ‘bal­lot secu­ri­ty’ pro­gram con­duct­ed by the NCGOP and 1984 Helms for Senate Committee. He coör­di­nat­ed sev­er­al ‘bal­lot secu­ri­ty’ activ­i­ties in 1984, includ­ing a post­card mail­ing to vot­ers in pre­dom­i­nant­ly black precincts which was designed to serve as a basis to chal­lenge vot­ers on elec­tion day.”
Farr told atten­dees at a 1990 meet­ing that the need for “bal­lot secu­ri­ty” mea­sures, such as post­cards, “was not as com­pelling as in 1984, since, unlike in 1984, the state had a Republican governor.”

In 1990, the Helms cam­paign sent post­cards to black vot­ers who may have changed address­es warn­ing of “vot­er eli­gi­bil­i­ty and the penal­ties for elec­tion fraud.” Farr said he did not know about the deci­sion to send the post­cards, and the memo does not state that he did.
Scott spent the past days study­ing this memo and speak­ing direct­ly to the document’s author. He spoke to the author Wednesday for at least part of a near­ly 45-minute peri­od as his col­leagues vot­ed on lim­it­ing debate on Farr’s nom­i­na­tion. Scott agreed to the lim­it.
On Thursday, just half an hour before Farr’s con­fir­ma­tion vote was set to take place on the Senate floor, Scott invit­ed sev­er­al col­leagues to his office to dis­cuss the memo and hear from the author, via con­fer­ence call, once again.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R‑Florida, told McClatchy as he head­ed to that meet­ing he was still inclined to vote for Farr but as a prac­tice always dis­cussed nom­i­nees with Scott, espe­cial­ly when race has been a fac­tor.
“Was (Farr) a lawyer rep­re­sent­ing a client, telling them what they were legal­ly allowed to do, or was he a polit­i­cal con­sul­tant deter­min­ing strat­e­gy and tar­get­ing? I don’t know the answer to that. It was a long time ago,” Rubio explained. “But I think that’s kind of what we’re focused in on.“
Sen. Susan Collins, R‑Maine, anoth­er sen­a­tor at the meet­ing and a mem­ber of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had ear­li­er in the week said she would con­firm Farr but was now “tak­ing a look at this infor­ma­tion which was not avail­able previously.”It’s not clear whether Scott would have ulti­mate­ly per­suad­ed them to also vote against Farr, but he has a track record of being influ­en­tial. 
Earlier the sum­mer, Scott announced he would oppose Ryan Bounds, a nom­i­nee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who as a Stanford University stu­dent-pro­duced writ­ings that mocked mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism and cul­tur­al sen­si­tiv­i­ty. Scott’s oppo­si­tion influ­enced Rubio and oth­er Republicans to also say they would vote against Bounds, result­ing in GOP lead­ers hav­ing to pull the nom­i­nee just min­utes before the con­fir­ma­tion vote was set to take place.

North Carolina’s Eastern District cov­ers 44 coun­ties stretch­ing from Raleigh to the Atlantic coast. The pop­u­la­tion of the dis­trict is 27 per­cent African-American, and no black judge has ever been seat­ed on the court. The seat has been vacant since Jan 1, 2006.

Farr was nom­i­nat­ed by President George W. Bush in 2006 and 2007, but nev­er received a vote. President Barack Obama nom­i­nat­ed two African-American women for the court, but nei­ther received a vote. Farr was nom­i­nat­ed for the seat by President Donald Trump in 2017 and again in 2018.

Farr’s nom­i­na­tion has been bit­ter­ly con­test­ed by Democrats and civ­il rights groups, who cit­ed Farr’s work for Helms and more recent work defend­ing North Carolina’s Republican law­mak­ers in law­suits over vot­er ID and ger­ry­man­der­ing. A pan­el of fed­er­al judges said the 2013 vot­er ID law tar­get­ed African-American vot­ers with “almost sur­gi­cal pre­ci­sion,” strik­ing it down.
“Thomas Farr is not fit to serve. He has a long, long his­to­ry of being hos­tile to vot­ing rights and vot­er sup­pres­sion,” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a Wilson, North Carolina Democrat and for­mer chair­man of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Farr’s sup­port­ers, includ­ing North Carolina Republican Sens. Thom Tillis and Richard Burr, have point­ed to his “well qual­i­fied” rat­ing from the American Bar Association. Tillis said Democrats engaged in a “Kavanaugh-esque attempt to dis­cred­it him,” ref­er­enc­ing the fight over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh who faced alle­ga­tions of decades-old sex­u­al assault dur­ing his con­fir­ma­tion hear­ing.
Tillis said Thursday that Farr’s back­ers were “still work­ing on it” and that he was “hope­ful” sup­port­ers would pre­vail over skep­tics.
On Wednesday, Scott was sig­nal­ing an open­ness to vote for Farr, but told reporters on Capitol Hill he was both­ered that his par­ty was “not doing a very good job of avoid­ing the obvi­ous pot­holes on race in America and we ought to be more sen­si­tive when it comes to those issues.
“There are a lot of folks that can be judges, in states includ­ing North Carolina, besides Tom Farr,” Scott added.